From: Brent Krupp (fletcher@u.washington.edu)
Date: Fri 25 Feb 1994 - 09:20:13 EET
Brent Krupp here...
***Ray Turney says...
>integral to the RQII/III experience system; the problem is not CheckQuest
>but the difficulty in getting checks for skills that are normally used in
>non-crisis situations; combined with legitmately gained checks for fighting.
>It is hard to prevent an RQII-III scholar {Lankhor Mhy} from becoming a very
>good fighter, almost as good as the Orlanthi, if both he and they get a
>check in every fight. Each player will roll, each character will go up at
>about the same rate, and eventually both will end up weaponmasters.
***end quote
While the above is a real complaint, the actual problem is that the
scholar character is playing in the wrong campaign or in the wrong manner.
What is a Lhankor Mhy doing fighting as much as an Orlanthi? If he does
fight that much, he *deserves* to be as good, but he should be using
those scholarly skills to get checks and improve. If the adventure does
not allow a Lhankor Mhy character to get skill checks in skills relevant
to him, THEN WHY IS HE ON THE ADVENTURE? I understand that the complaint
is a real one -- but the rules should not be changed because of campaign
or referee failures. The rules ARE good at letting Lhankor Mhy-types
train up their skills out-of-combat. Then leave the guy at home except
when he is needed on an adventure to use those scholarly skills. Is it
really a better solution to have a Lhankor Mhy go out on combat-heavy
adventures and then funnel all the checks into scholarly skills that he
may have used only incidentally?
Perhaps I'm totally off-base, but it seemed that the idea of RQ:AiG was to
*revise* and *improve* RQ and thereby one's ability to game Glorantha.
Wholesale alteration of fundamental game mechanics seems to be beyond the
scope of the new draft. One may dislike skill checks and prefer an
experience-point-like system, but *my god*, skill checks are one of the
fundamental aspects of what makes any RQ-like game an RQ-like game. To
hand out checks by GM fiat and then use a "funny die roll mechanic to
determine how many points the skill went up" is tantamount to simply handing
out XP, ala Hero/GURPS/AD&D...
At this late date (playtest copies expensively distributed to a select
few and many of us not able to access them), perhaps rules that *are
actually going to be changed* should be discussed. Is Oliver *really*
going make such major changes now? And then playtest them and thereby
delay the release or worse yet, not playtest these major changes at all?
Something like the Sorcery Duration/Range debate is at least between the
new rule which is being playtested, and the old rule (more-or-less) which
has years of game experience behind it...
Brent Krupp (fletcher@u.washington.edu)
0,,
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Sat 05 Jul 2003 - 20:36:42 EEST